A Real Public Option In Connecticut?

The other day in an open thread I commented on "the intended public option that should be Sustinet in Connecticut," and it would seem that is to be the case if the Sustinet Health Partnership Board of Directors get their way according to the report they handed in to the Connecticut General Assembly. Jon Walker has the key report paragraphs at FDL and summerizes it all too well, as anyone that has followed Healthcare reform closely would be aware of these realities:

This report demonstrates what a horrible deal the system of subsidized, loosely-regulated private health insurance exchanges is for both the uninsured and the taxpayers. Using a public health insurance program, the state of Connecticut will be able to provide low income Americans a higher level of coverage at lower personal cost and it will still have a lower overall price tag for the government.

The only entities for whom the design of private exchanges is a good deal are the drug companies, hospitals, and private insurance companies. The exchanges assure customers for the unnecessary private insurance middlemen. Loose regulation of the exchanges prevents the government from using the market power of a large pool to negotiate with the drug companies and hospitals for lower prices, and so they get higher reimbursement fees.

It seems like they might as well being making the argument for a "Medicare for All!" solution but even as only a Public Option it would force the private insurers into an honest battle for customer base, IMHO, much like the Swiss model which is leaps and bounds better than the American model we are trying to reform.

Anyways, maybe we will have a real horse race to compare models of healthcare reform?

As we mark the passing of the latest phase of health reform laws implemented on January 1st(scroll the comments there and you will see some interesting comments pointing to what I mean about cost controls and other issues, OK?), the six states Politico suggests following are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Wisconsin for various reasons ranging from the most resistant to reform in Alaska, to the intended public option that should be Sustinet in Connecticut, and all the way over to the Single Payer movement in Vermont. I would not count Single Payer as out of the question in California, either, though there is no mention of that large movement behind it.

Comments

Added this paragraph at the time of this comment just because it seems to fit and make sense of it in a meaningful way:

It seems like they might as well being making the argument for a "Medicare for All!" solution but even as only a Public Option it would force the private insurers into an honest battle for customer base, IMHO, much like the Swiss model which is leaps and bounds better than the American model we are trying to reform.

even as only a Public Option it would force the private insurers into an honest battle for customer base

then I'll be happy for the prospect. But, one thing I've concluded is that, under Bush-era 'free markets', competition isn't necessarily what the agenda was, it was competition in the way the lobbyists could afford to pay to shape it.

On a state level bais, I'd hope it's a different game.

-----"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson